Below we examine some of the bills relating directly to murder by abortion being considered by the Oklahoma Legislature in 2022.

When evaluating abortion bills, we begin with the fundamental principle that every human being is made in the image of God.  Humans are different from opossums and cockroaches.  Because we are all equally human and equally precious to God, we should be valued equally under the law.  These are the key standards we use to measure an abortion-related bill:

  • Equal Protection.  The bill should provide equal protection for all preborn humans against any and all would-be murderers and conspirators, including parents.
  • Equal Justice.  The bill should allow the punishment to fit the crime. There should be no penalty caps or misdemeanor-like “wrist slaps” for snuffing out innocent lives.  There should be no loopholes that allow some circumstantial murders by abortion.
  • Immediate.  The bill should not delay enactment or implement incremental steps.  The time for justice is always now.
  • Jurisdiction.  The bill should recognize and act on the fact of the constitutionally preeminent jurisdiction of the State over Washington, D.C. in matters of our civil criminal code.

SB 1372 “Equal Protection and Equal Justice Act” or “Oklahoma Sanctuary for the Preborn Act” by Sen. Warren Hamilton

This bill has no deficiencies and should be supported. If enacted and enforced, its effect would be the immediate and total abolition of abortion in Oklahoma.  Here are the four key provisions:

  1. Defines Homicide Consistently:  “Homicide shall include, but not be limited to, acts which cause the death of an unborn child committed during an abortion.”
  2. Corrects Contradictions:  “Existing provisions regulating abortion or abortion facilities are not repealed but are superseded to the extent of any conflict or inconsistency.”
  3. Establishes Liability for Wrongful Death:  Existing law provides that “When the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter…”  In other words, a person involved in homicide might get sued in court and held responsible for the loss of life.  However, current law also provides a legal loophole that exempts abortionists from liability.  This bill would close that loophole:  “The provisions of this section shall also be available for the death of an unborn person…”
  4. Directs Enforcement:  With the enactment SB 1372, the Legislature would say that “this state and all political subdivisions of this state shall enforce…Oklahoma Statutes in relation to abortion without regard to the opinions and judgments of the Supreme Court of the United States in Roe v. Wade…and its judicial progeny, past and future…and without regard to any other contrary or conflicting federal statute, regulation, treaty, executive order, or court ruling.”  It also warns Oklahoma judges not to interfere:  “any judge of this state who purports to enjoin, stay, overrule, or void any provision of this act shall be subject to impeachment or removal.”

HB 4111 Abolishing Abortion by Rep. Mark Vancuren

This bill is excellent and should be supported.  If enacted and enforced, its effect would be the immediate and total abolition of abortion in Oklahoma.

Key Language:  Abortion would be classified as homicide:  “A person commits murder in the first degree when that person performs any abortion procedure or assists another person in the performance of any abortion procedure [or] intentionally receives an abortion…”  Statutory contradictions would be resolved by repealing existing provisions for “legal abortion.”

SB 1503 / HB 3700 “Oklahoma Heartbeat Act” by Sen. Julie Daniels and Rep. Rep. Todd Russ

Key Language:  “a physician shall not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman unless the physician has determined…whether the woman’s unborn child has a detectable fetal heartbeat” and “the physician must use a test that is… Consistent with the physician’s good faith and reasonable understanding of standard medical practice…”

Problems:

  • These bills discriminate against very young human beings who do not have detectable heartbeats.  This violates the constitutionally guaranteed right to life and requirement for equal protection under the law, thus making them immoral and unconstitutional.
  • These bills do not establish equal protection of the law or equal justice because they contain a loophole for self-induced abortions.  Going after doctors only is not equal protection, thus making these proposals immoral and unconstitutional.
  • These bills rely upon and trust abortionists, whose livelihood depends on murder, to confirm that they found no heartbeats in their victims.
  • Under these bills, the State would completely shirk its God-given duty to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), leaving it up to private citizens:  “No enforcement of this act…shall be taken or threatened by this state…”
  • These bills pull out their own teeth and make themselves meaningless by granting that abortionists might legitimately defend themselves using the claim that women have a constitutional right to an abortion as granted by SCOTUS. The bills refer to Roe v. Wade as a “matter of federal constitutional law.” Once again, pro-life politicians bow down to their god SCOTUS, asking permission, favor, and blessing upon their sacrifices (bills).
  • These are the types of proposals that many pro-lifers choose to support rather than full criminalization.  These bills should be opposed as a distraction and false alternative to what is needed and necessary.

HB 4327 Civil Law Suits by Rep. Wendi Stearman

Key Language:  “A physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman…  This act shall be enforced exclusively through private civil actions.”

Problems:

  • This bill does not establish equal protection of the law or equal justice because it maintains a loophole for self-induced abortions.  Going after doctors only is not equal protection, thus making the proposal unjust and unconstitutional.
  • Under this bill, the State would completely shirk its God-given duty to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4), leaving it up to private citizens.
  • This bill pulls out its own teeth and makes itself meaningless by granting that abortionists might legitimately defend themselves using the claim that women have a constitutional right to an abortion as granted by SCOTUS.  The bill refers to Roe v. Wade as a “matter of federal constitutional law.”  Once again, pro-life politicians bow down to their god SCOTUS, asking permission, favor, and blessing upon their sacrifices (bills).
  • This is the type of proposal that many pro-lifers choose to support rather than full criminalization.  This bill should be opposed as a distraction and false alternative to what is needed and necessary.

SJR 37 Proposed Constitutional Amendment by Sen. Greg Treat

Key Language:  This resolution would allow Oklahomans to vote on whether or not to add the following sentence to the Oklahoma Constitution:  “Recognizing that abortion is a unique and destructive act that terminates the life of an unborn human being, nothing in this Constitution secures or protects a right to an abortion.”

Problems:

  • Unnecessary:  The Oklahoma Constitutional already states in Article 2 Section 2 that “All persons have the inherent right to life…” and in Article 2 Section 7 that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
  • Murder is not a Matter of Opinion:  We should not allow a vote of the people to decide whether or not murder is a State constitutional right.  To submit this resolution to a vote of the people would be to communicate that we get to decide by vote whether murder by abortion is right or wrong in Oklahoma.  We should not be deciding absolute right and wrong by popular vote.
  • Dangerous and Risky:  If the vote were to go the wrong way, it could be a blow from which we would not recover for generations.  The humanists and media would spin it that “The People have spoken.  They want abortion to be a constitutional right.  Case closed.”  Because the concept of “consent of the governed” has been redefined to mean “whatever the governed want,” popular perception might be that the vote in favor of abortion is therefore binding upon future officials who want to abolish abortion.  This proposal unnecessarily risks an insurmountable set-back.

SB 612 Limited Abortion Ban by Sen. Nathan Dahm

Key Language:  “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.”

Problems:  The bill does not establish equal protection or equal justice because it contains a loophole for self-induced abortions.  It would be criminal to perform an abortion, but not to procure one.  That is, there is no criminalization of parents, grandparents, friends, boyfriends, and pimps, who agitate, coerce, manipulate, or provide funds and material support for abortion.

SB 1561 Abortion as Homicide by Sen Jake Merrick

Key Language:  “Homicide shall include, but not be limited to, acts which cause the death of an unborn child committed during an abortion.”

Problems:  The current language of the bill would set up a contradiction between homicide in Title 21 and legal abortions regulated in Title 63 of State statutes.  The bill currently proposes enactment 1 November 2022, rather than declaring an emergency and calling for immediate action.  With a proper amendment, this bill could function as a bill of abolition.

SB 1553 Thirty Day Abortion Ban by Sen. Greg Treat

Key Language:  “No person shall perform or induce an abortion upon a pregnant woman if more than thirty (30) days have elapsed since…the last menstrual period [LMP] of the pregnant woman.”

Problems:  The bill would not establish equal protection or equal justice because its only effective change would be to move the legal line for abortion doctors from “viability” to thirty days post-LMP.  The bill would preserve existing discrimination against very young humans and preserve existing loopholes for all other parties to the crime, including parents, grandparents, friends, boyfriends, and pimps, who agitate, coerce, manipulate, or provide funds and material support for abortion.

Intent:  Senator Greg Treat has consistently maintained that the States must obey SCOTUS when it comes to abortion.  In fact, Treat passed a “trigger bill” last year that would ban many abortions from conception if SCOTUS were to reverse its Roe v. Wade opinion.  Oddly, if SB 1553 were enacted, and SCOTUS reversed Roe, Treat would have moved his own cutoff line from a year ago in the wrong direction, from conception to thirty days.  So the intent of this bill is extremely unclear.  We are left to speculate that perhaps Treat is interested in protecting early chemical abortions.  He has not explained why an incremental and arbitrary line of thirty days is morally or practically superior to the only justifiable line of conception.  The author’s intent appears to be based upon his own internal standard of pragmatism.  The effective date is not until 1 November 2022, indicating the author’s intent to see how other bills fare and what court opinions are issued.

SJR 17 / HJR 1027 Proposed Constitutional Amendment by Sen. David Bullard and Rep. Denise Crosswhite Hader

Key Language:  If enacted, this resolution would put before a vote of the people several new provisions to the state constitution, including this language:  “Any person found guilty of performing an abortion…shall, upon conviction, be guilty of manslaughter in the first degree.”

This concept sounds appealing on its face, but upon closer inspection, it is fraught with political and philosophical problems.  In short, it is immoral, unconstitutional, and practically very dangerous.  See our in-depth analysis.